Please note that users new to the subreddit might experience posting limitations until they become more active and longer members of the community. If you experience any issues with this, please don't hesitate to contact the moderators.

Upcoming AMAs

Who

Date

Time

Rules

The moderators of r/Canada reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.

They get paid quite well given that their job requires very little technical skill. Plus the strike was unplanned and illegal meaning that Air Canada had no time to put in place contingency measures to help alleviate slow down/warn travellers. Air Canada is an example of a company where the unions have too much power. They keep asking for more but everyone's going to lose when the company goes bankrupt again.

Baggage handlers have calluses on their hands and feet, ceo's have them on their ass and lips. The only real difference between them is that baggage handlers are smart enough not to get calluses on their ass and lips.

So much ignorance about the situation for workers at Air Canada. I can understand why someone from the public would want to spit on someone after traveling all day, but that doesn't make it right at all. Nasty.

To be honest I'd be willing to clock the fucker in return for not being able to press charges. Literally the only time I have ever lost my temper so badly that I fought someone other than my brother was when some asshole spat on me.

Personally, I think we should legalize dueling and enshrine "spitting in the face" as a legal provocation to duel. That way, whenever some asshole spits on someone like this and then tries to just walk away, they get killed.

In this instance, he's trying to walk away, so he gets shot in the back. After a short while of this implementation of dueling law, the only people spitting would be excellent marksmen, so the problem would disappear.

In Canada battery is a tort, not a criminal charge. He could (and should) have been charged with assault. Also, people don't get to decide to press charges, the crown does. Why they would chose not to pursue this as an assault charge is beyond me.

Absolutely, maybe he was just impersonating an officer? But in all probability maybe he was asking you out of a kindness? Ultimately the decision rests with them, so that, say, a battered wife can't decide to keep her abusive husband out of jail.

She gave him the finger after he got up in the face of another employee, which is pretty obviously documented in this video. She never touched him, he bore down on her and forced her backwards a few steps before spitting in her face. Totally uncalled for.

I am glad we agree on how moronic an act it is to spit in someone's face. I also hate to beleaguer the point, as it doesn't make much difference, but the lady in question had nothing in her hand. If you skip to 0:45 you'll see the man headfake a shorter guy on a cellphone before turning around to face the girl.

She holds her middle finger up in front of his face and he slaps it away, knocking the Bluetooth earpiece out of his right ear, before taking a few steps into her, bumping her backwards and spitting in her face.

She probably shouldn't have provoked him, as he was already acting very aggressively, but I will tell you 100% she had no object in her hand. Source: I was standing about 10 feet to the right, out of the frame.

I'll have to take your word for it. The video very definitely gives the appearance of something in her hand. I assumed it was a flyer or her keys or something.

I think it's awesome that she was willing to stand up for her principles and for other people, but it's definitely not an action I would have taken with someone who was already behaving in an aggressive manner. Kudos to her though for not just taking it from him.

Wow I would love to get in his face and I'm probably half his size. Both my parents work for Air Canada and what has happened within that company over the last 20 years is nothing short of textbook corporate greed. And the current government is right in the back pocket those fat sloths.

She could pursue him being charged but the cop probably explain that the guy would end up charging her back and then the cop would have to arrest the girl.
Similar happen to me outside a bar with a cop 30 feet away. Drunk guy sucker punched me and I pushed him and then punched him in return. Cops said they would charge him with drunk in public and some other charge but if I pressed assault I would probably be charged also.

I said it elsewhere but I was listening to Amber Gero who was live and on scene at the time, and that was exactly what she said, because the woman clocked him, the cops decided it was a wash and didn't bother charging either of them.

They are really pissed about their pensions. The company borrowed against their pension, than lost all that money. Now that the money is gone, the company says it will never come back and the workers won't be compensated. On top of that, the company wants to pay workers much less.

It's a pretty shitty situation. Plus, the union has not been very effective at communicating with the public.

I'm sure it's been ingrained by this point about the 'evils' of unions but I don't think anyone realizes or understands their position. They aren't GM employees raking in buttloads of money. They get paid poorly and have had little adjustment to this stagnant wages while their executives are giving out bonuses. I would be upset too.

Notice the pattern here lately? Unions want to strike and the government makes it illegal. This "essential service" thing is starting to become pretty broad.

I would be fucking pissed too if the government took away my right to strike. Wildcatting is what happens when the Union and employer fail to resolve their conflict. In fact, a lot of companies used to want their workers unionized just to avoid a wildcat. Nothing hurts a company more then when your employees all walkout.

This union might be the worst in the country, "wildcat" means that it is not sanctioned by the union leadership.

The last time the baggage handlers had a wildcat strike, it was because the airport had video evidence of baggage handlers punching in their cowokers when they don't even show up. That is stealing. Management went to the union delegates and showed them the tapes, together they decided how to handle it. The union members went on strike to protest people getting in trouble for stealing.

Hasn't stopped the CEOs total compensation rising 854% since 2002. Similar increases for the rest of the executive. For the frontline staff? 10 years of a contract imposed in bankruptcy, which has them making less now than they were in 2002.

and already had to be bailed out once.

Citation needed. Unless you want to include a loan, backed by collateral, at 13% as a 'bailout' of course.

If there's one person I don't want making a shit wage in a shit economy, it's the fucking guy flying my plane. I'll never understand people like you and your race to the bottom mentality. If there's one subject in this discussion who's a "pampered baby", I'd wager it's the guy bitching about service quality, not the employee who's irked at making a burger flipper's wage while their CEO bankrupts the company with their mismanagement and bonuses.

Air Canada, which has been involved in bitter and continuing labour problems over the past year with its pilots, mechanics, flight attendants and now ground crews, suspended three workers at Toronto's Pearson Airport on Thursday evening, setting off a chain of events that led to the illegal action.

Also, just as important that they're well paid. Less a need to try to make some extra cash on the side by rifling through my baggage, not to mention someone who isn't stressing about how he's going to pay his bills would probably be less likely to take it out on my stuff. In any case, I'm always for advocating better pay for the people who actually do the work at a company.

I think part of that has to do with reduced internet rates. It's become cheaper to communicate with distant places, making the world seem smaller than it once was, so people don't really consider how very much it costs to ship them overseas.

This is the most common mistake in understanding the situation. Imagine if you have 20 years of experience in an industry with specialized training in it. Where are all of these jobs just sitting and waiting for these people. Is there an airline somewhere just sitting and waiting for thousands of airline workers to become available?

OK, so perhaps you mean in some other industry. That means doing something you have little to no experience or training, which means low paying, possibly minimum wage jobs. It means these people are trapped. Their choices are limited. They end their careers and start new, sell their houses and lifestyle, and plan to work themselves into the grave since they won't be able to retire at 65 starting at the bottom at 40 or 50. Or they can stay and suffer the worsening pay and conditions, leading to similar, though not as bad results.

The problem here is a simultanous Prisoners Dilemma, in the form of an Ultimatum Game. It's described here in exactly the terms of the economic value of unions, but a quick summary is that in this game two players are offered $100 to split. Player 1 gets to offer a split, and Player 2 makes the decision to accept or reject it (which means neither get anything). Player 1 is optimal to offer next to nothing, say $1, and keep $99. Player 2 is optimal to accept it since their choice is between getting $1 and $0. This means people can get rich at the expense of others simply because of the structure of the transaction rather than any form of "deserving" or "fairness". (Also keep in mind that in the real case, the Player 2s are the workers who actually produce the wealth/value and the Player 1s control the opportunities for such wealth to be created. Both are equally necessary.)

A union equalizes the power structure to give a level playing field. Now the workers can't be exploited via the Ultimatum Game structure and owners need to negotiate based on a level playing field.

I hate unions and hated being part of one, and fought with our local president regularly. But, unions are like taxes. Nobody likes them but they are a necessity for the prosperity and stability of an economy.

Unions definitely have a place in society. I'm really not a fan of the practices of certain unions, like protecting incompetent workers, but not all unions engage in practices like that. They work best when everyone participates, so I guess they tend to get side-tracked when participation is low and the few in charge abuse their power (or at least misrepresent their workers)

Because in Canada the freedom to associate is a constitutionally protected right via s. 2)d) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Meaning we are theoretically entitled to engage in a process of collective bargaining in order to negotiate a better wage.

Better jobs don't just grow on some magic "better job tree". Unfortunately, most companies don't just pay their employees a reasonable wage out of the kindness of their hearts, so workers use their constitutional right to negotiate better working conditions for themselves.

Why walk when you are constitutionally guaranteed (in theory) the right to stay and fight. It benefits everyone because it leads to a more equal distribution of money in society.

What do you mean? People that have awful jobs only have the option of going to another one that is just as bad. These folks aren't choosing between baggage handler and being a CEO. When you are in that position it's tough. You are in debt, rent has already been late a couple times, car needs a new muffler, cost of your prescriptions has gone up, and your kid is complaining about new shoes. With that going on you want this person to walk out just to take another job where they are treated just as bad? Life is tough when you don't make much and eventually you become trapped in not just the class but also the way of thinking, concerns you have, and perspective on who and what you are. Not every person can go from rags to riches. For every 1 in a million story there are 999,999 folks who didn't make it.

You're right. Everyone gets exactly what they deserve and living a difficult life is proof positive of an innate weakness in an individual. There is no point in debating you on this. Do me a favor though and try your best to not kick the next homeless person you see in the face even though the worthless lay about deserves it. You can count it as your good deed for the day.

can't afford kids? don't have them, condoms are a lot cheaper then a baby. can't afford a car, take the bus. can't afford debt, don't take it on, be frugal. don't want to be a 'slave' to your job. make cut backs and fucking save.

many, not all, but many people have the option not to live pay cheque to pay cheque but they would rather have a new iPhone or make stupid decisions and fuck about instead of going to night school

Well you are partially correct the true definition is a little broader.

A wildcat strike is when workers not in eligible strike position leave the workplace.

To be in legal strike position you can not be under an existing contract, a vote with a 50% + 1 majority of members most vote in favor of a strike and 48 hours notice must be provided by union representatives to management representatives.

A wildcat strike can occur with or without union leadership consent.

Striking while under an injunction is not a wildcat strike. It is an illegal strike action by being in contempt of parliament or other government regulatory body.

Wildcat strike workers are not protected from job loss under the charter however people striking illegally vs an injunction are still protected unless other criteria is also met.

Now I am not sure of all the details behind this strike so I may be missing key information. But (1) you shouldn't be spitting on someone face regardless of what they do and (2) the government should rarely be enforcing a union back to work (and I am a conservative supporter).

But then again I am not quite sure the reasons for the walkout so I am not sure how legit it was.

Major douche move. Its never okay to touch someone or spit on someone or do anything of that nature as an adult. We aren't cave men.

That said, I don't understand why so many people are sympathizing with strikers. You guys know they get paid decently considering they have no education right? Its not a bad job and comes with good benefits including standby flight benefits. So I'm not sure why anyone believes these guys could make more. While we are at it, all mcdonalds workers should go on strike too. Since they should make more money! Because... Just..because!

That's disgusting, but fuck Air Canada. My flight to Vancouver was cancelled today, and thus my flight to Sydney Aus. did not happen. I felt like yelling and screaming, but instead I packed my wife and kids up and went back home. Sucks.

Man. Before I flew to Sydney in October I was reading the paper or whatever and they were saying Air Canada might be on strike starting Thursday. This was Monday. My flight was the next day but I almost shit a brick when I was "strike". I made my flights and all was well but I would have lost my shit. 2000$ tour, 2000$ flight, etcetc all lost because of a strike. So sorry that shit had to happen to you :(

One of the strikers at YVR spit on some old dude earlier in the week (granted, old dude shoved his way past the strikers (they were blocking traffic causing people to be late), shoulder checking mr. spitty-pants, so....)

The whole point of the wildcat strike was to annoy and frustrate and inconvenience and make miserable that day for AC passengers. I don't condone spitting on anyone, I've never done it, it's not something that would even occur to me to do no matter how mad I was. But that doesn't mean I have any sympathy or empathy for the strikers. They just expect the passengers to sit by quietly while they intentionally make their day miserable? Fuck them. They want to go on strike? Fine. They have that right. Give AC and the passengers fair warning ahead of time to make alternate arrangements.

obviously I was being sarcastic, but our federal government has made a habit of legislating away the right to strike in recent years from workers how have been in a valid position to do so. Of course, they say it's about the economy each time. They have interfered on Air Canada labour issues 3 times alone.

It would be your provincial government's duty to breach the constitutional right to strike in both of those circumstances. Transit (within a province) and education are both provincially regulated in labour law.

No. This is the shit I hate...I really hope you voted in the last election.

They do not have the right to strike anymore. Lisa Raitt has issued back-to-work legislation multiple times now against AC union who simply want to negotiate terms for their new contracts. AC doesn't want to negotiate, they consistently offer the same rejected proposals over and over until the workers are forced to sign. What Lisa Raitt has done is not allowed, as Air Canada is a non-Crown corp.

The reason for the wildcat strike was in protest of employees being suspended for applauding Lisa Raitt as she walked through the airport. As far as I'm concerned, when you decide to run for office and win, you have to face the ups and downs of the jobs. She was insulted from the applaud and immediately complained to the AC brass who suspended the workers involved for 72 hours. That's when the walkout occurred. Had AC agreed to not punish those workers, as well as the 37 people who were fired on the spot for the walkout, then this wouldn't have dragged on. You see the execs at AC all have an ego to uphold, much like Ms. Raitt.

I said the strikers expected the passengers (or would-be passengers) to "sit by quietly". I never said how I thought the strikers thought the passengers should "feel."

And if the strikers knew that passengers would feel something on a scale ranging from annoyed to furious at their actions, why should we feel bad when something that could be expected as a result actually occurs?

From my POV, spitting on someone is gross and childish but the feeling that passenger has I could imagine having too. No sympathy from me.

You are crazy if you think the workers "expected passengers to sit by quietly". AC doesn't give a shit about its employees, and things like this seem to be the only way to get their attention, as their right to strike has effectively been taken away from the government.

You need to read the papers, boy.

Also, if that passenger has some sort of right to be pissed and therefore assault one of the employees because the employees went on strike, then by God, if I ever see that man protesting anything, I'm going to piss on him.

Why should I have sympathy for the Air Canada ground staff and baggage handlers at Pearson International when they broke the law and even infuriated their own union bosses? Three workers get a 72-hour suspension and that warrants throwing the whole country's air transport system into chaos??

One could argue that Parliament broke the law by robbing the handlers of their right to strike. So, the workers are simply undertaking a bit of Labour Code vigilantism.
If Air Canada could simply cut its umbilical with the federal government, and operate as other airlines and ground service companies do, then these sorts of problems wouldn't occur on the scale they do.

Because the passengers were powerless. This situation happened to them. They were entirely blameless. Even you recognise that don't you? This situation happened because a bunch of baggage handlers and ground staff threw a hissy fit as a result of three of their co-workers being given 72-hour suspensions for embarrassing their bosses in front of a government minister. What happened was 100%, entirely, their choice.

baggage handlers and ground staff threw a hissy fit as a result of three of their co-workers being given 72-hour suspensions

No, that's not right at all. To get the entire picture, you have to go back to the bankruptcy proceedings in the early part of the 2000s. They lost then. They've been on the same contract since. They haven't had the chance to negotiate a new contract in over a decade and, when the chance finally came, they had another concessionary contract present to them, their rights stripped by the federal government and the balance at the negotiating table tipped firmly in favour of Air Canada.

This was no hissy fit. This is a powderkeg that's been 10 years in the making by inept leadership at the top of the corporation. The federal government intervening under completely false pretenses has only exacerbated the situation.

The news says that the minister was I.D.ed by A.C. ground staff, heckled and jeered at, and A.C. management gave 72-hour suspensions to the ground staff who led the jeering and that's what started this off.

IMHO, they should have been fired. The minister is a passenger and a customer and these people demonstrated zero professionalism. I'd be fired if I had done something like that to even the smallest of my company's customers

On a side note, I feel like unions are largely responsible for the moral decay of society.. the idea was good, when they started out. Now, its grown into an exercise of mass self-inflated sense of entitlement.

Yeah, they're improving the world around them. and people around them thank them by spitting in their mouths.

When you strike, the only thing you're improving (potentially) is your own salary. Anyone thinking otherwise, is deluding themselves. Gone are the days of the gross mistreatment of workers. Now what they see as "poor working conditions" would be fuckin ballin for that singapore child constructing your nikes.

And again, just because other people have it worse, we aren't allowed to improve our own station? Such a philosophy has very concerning implications.

And yes, going on strike is beneficial for the strikers. It improves the quality of pay for those workers. Presumably, this would increase the quality of workers by widening the pool of people willing to work for AC, and increasing worker retention. Whether or not that's a net gain or loss is obviously unclear with the limited information we have.

And yes, striking is inconvenient for those trying to use the service. That's why striking occurs!

I see one flaw in that, nobody ever "improves" their pay down. Everybody always believe they "deserve" more.

This is why we can't compete with these other countries out east. The culture there is firmly rooted in what's best for the community (community = employer + employee), over here in the western world, what's "best" is whatever lines your pockets the thickest.

Want to know why the western economy can't compete in today's world markets? unions. plain and simple.

Right, that's why unions aren't the only guy sitting at the bargaining table.

Want to know why the western economy can't compete in today's world markets? unions. plain and simple.

That's simplistic to the point of uselessness. The reason our workers cost more isn't because of unions, those are just the visual spectre of the cause: the western populace wants a higher standard of living. That's it. Unions are just one of the ways in which the populace increases their standard of living.

Every generation talks about moral decay. Doesn't sound like you understand what morals are, nor what they really represent.

I do agree with your first statement to a degree, though. At the same time I do recognize how unions have been good for society as a whole. Still I agree more with people fighting for their benefit, especially the common man.

On a side note, I feel like unions are largely responsible for the moral decay of society

I feel like people who bring up "the moral decay of society" should qualify the statement by identifying what morality is and pointing to a time when society actually had a consensus on what constitutes moral behaviour...but hey, that's just me.

Gotta remember too. When you work for somebody, you enforce their rules. Not your own. That person getting spat on is just trying to make a living being the "messenger" and gets spat on. Disgusting in both ways

AC would be going out of business union or no union. It's not their job to help AC be profitable when the whole business model is busted. They need to focus on what their responsibilities are - standing up for their members and making sure they're not getting fucked. Which, unfortunately, they don't seem to be doing a great job at either, but the deck may be stacked against them.

Air Canada could drive itself out of business all on its own, and would have done long ago if it weren't for constant interference from Parliament. You'd almost think it were still Crown property, so cozy is that relationship.